By which method should one determine which meal he or she is eating? Should they come by time of day? That would mean breakfast in the morning, lunch in the early afternoon, and dinner in the evening? Should they be classified by the order they come in? Therefore, even if you eat your first meal at 3 pm it is still breakfast because it is your first meal of the day. In this system, skipping meals is impossible. The last option is that meals should be classified by what type of food they consist of. Therefore, if you eat a steak and a baked potato when you wake up, your eating dinner. If you eat pancakes at 6 o'clock in the evening, you're still eating breakfast. Me and my friends got in an argument about this. Please help us sort it out.

Sadly, this whole operation is further complicated if a fresh kill (hunted or struck by vehicle) is brought in. Type of meat is unimportant. Luckily, the solution is rather formulaic.

Breakfast: Add meat to eggs, or gravy per predilection
Lunch: Make sandwiches with meat
Dinner: Substitue roadkill for roast beef.

Glad I could help solve your problem.

MORAL: Ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. Arguing about food? Do you honestly have that much time? Eatin' time should be a time when we all get along. Perhaps you ought to argue about the ethics of capital punishment instead, hmm?

dmlawhorne wrote:By which method should one determine which meal he or she is eating?

Breakfast comes whenever you are breaking a fast. So, if you don't eat anything in the morning, what you eat in the afternoon or in the evening should be considered breakfast. The question is, what do you call what you eat after an evening breakfast? Lunch or dinner? Or perhaps, linner?

dmlawhorne wrote:Should they be classified by the order they come in? Therefore, even if you eat your first meal at 3 pm it is still breakfast because it is your first meal of the day. In this system, skipping meals is impossible.

Well, it's only impossible if you eat 2 meals that day, unless you would then call your next meal, the next morning, "dinner." The problem with that method is that you would have to have started keeping track at birth, and you may well be eating your breakfast sitting next to someone eating their dinner.

You also seem to have left out the term "supper," which was synonymous with dinner where I grew up (Ohio), but some people use "dinner" and "lunch" as synonyms meaning mid-day meal, and use only "supper" to denote the evening meal most of us probably call "dinner."

Amadeus wrote:Breakfast comes whenever you are breaking a fast.

But dinner has the exact same definition, being derived from the latin verb disjunare (for disjejunare) "break one's fast"* and, isn't any meal really breaking a fast of some sort?

I see nothing wrong with that question. Can't one ponder on the curiosities of life?

Absolutely not! MUAHAHAHA!

It was meant lightheartedly. 'Twas all in jest, mi amice, fear not! I trust the good author will understand this as well. No offense was meant, and I pray none was taken. I'm sure you can tell that I spent a bit of time on something equally as curious.

EDIT: Oddly enough, in response to edonnelly's observation, here in Kentucky..."dinner" means any meal taken from lunch to supper. lol! Dialect, eheu!

I classify a meal according to how I feel about it. I may be having my first meal at 7 pm, but I feel that meal is, in fact, my breakfast. On the other hand, sometimes when I wake up late I feel I have somehow lost my breakfast and then the next meal I call lunch, &c.

Sometimes I even have lunch and after that I have my breakfast So there's nothing scientific or technical about it, for me of course.

edonnelly wrote:But dinner has the exact same definition, being derived from the latin verb disjunare (for disjejunare) "break one's fast"* and, isn't any meal really breaking a fast of some sort?

Really? I did not know that! My world has been turned upside down. As for any meal breaking a fast of some sort, it depends, I guess, on how you define a fast. Is not eating for 12 hours a fast? I think so. How about 6 hours or 4? I don't know.

EgoIoYoEu wrote:It was meant lightheartedly. 'Twas all in jest, mi amice, fear not! I trust the good author will understand this as well. Very Happy No offense was meant, and I pray none was taken. I'm sure you can tell that I spent a bit of time on something equally as curious.

EgoIoYoEu wrote:It was meant lightheartedly. 'Twas all in jest, mi amice, fear not! I trust the good author will understand this as well. Very Happy No offense was meant, and I pray none was taken. I'm sure you can tell that I spent a bit of time on something equally as curious.

Ah, then everything's ok. Sometimes stuff just goes over my head.

In defence of Amadeus, I did not catch on to the fact that it was just jest.
Glad it was. My initial reaction was; "you spend a lot more time giving what you called a 'stupid answer' than it would have taken him to write a 'stupid question'."

When I worked the graveyard shift I would commonly come home at 8 in the morning and have dinner. My wife was very thrown off that she would get up in the morning and I would be eating pot roast with peas and carrotts.

Well, it's only impossible if you eat 2 meals that day, unless you would then call your next meal, the next morning, "dinner." The problem with that method is that you would have to have started keeping track at birth, and you may well be eating your breakfast sitting next to someone eating their dinner.

Could the cycle start over each day? Therefore the first meal of each day is breakfast, the second lunch, and the third dinner. There are some problems with this system. What if someone eats a fourth meal in a day. It can not be breakfast because you can't eat two breakfasts in one day. Also, what distinguishes a meal from a snack?